Excerpt...I think in Chan it often mentions great Doubt from asking eternal questions. Those questions should not be answered, but one should contemplate on the question for a long time until enlightenment. I don't know where to post this, but please remove to where appropriate.

I had tried all kinds of meditation, transcendental meditation, vipassana meditation, kundalini meditation, and plain simple sitting cross-legged in padmasana or ardhapadmasana. Nothing ‘worked’. So what was it that was missing? Or what was it I was doing wrong? The only answer I would get from the teachers is, keep practicing.

I got my answer only when the answer to the eternal question 'Who am I' was understood by me. I Am That.

So why was I not able to meditate?

Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita were my guides as I learnt and adopted yoga as a way of life. Patanjali is the source of all yoga teachings. Even Krishna refers to this in the Gita. Dhyana is the seventh of the eight sutras mentioned by Patanjali. Dhyana, a Sanskrit word, has been translated into meditation, an English word, and interpreted to mean, for the most part, sitting in meditation and focusing or concentrating the mind. It became a verb, an action. Dhyana in Sanskrit or Hindi is a noun, not a verb. It is a state of mind, not an action for the mind. From dhyana comes dhyanachitt which means mindfulness or awareness. In Hindi we say ‘dhyana se’ which means with awareness. When Krishna talks about dhyana in various places in the Gita, he is talking about performing action with dhyana, i.e. with mindfulness and awareness of Him all the time. In fact Zen, the philosophy that alone represents Buddha’s teachings in its purity, is derived from dhyana and in Chinese is pronounced very similar to dhyana.

Not saying there's no parallels or anything, but if one concludes "I am that" from the practice, that is a tradition that is different from Buddhadharma I would think.

If one is asking "who am I" with the intent of finding some substance there, that's a different kind of "who am I" than is done in Zen for example.

Also in some traditions (i'd hazard a fair number) the actual physical meditation position is said to be part of what enables someone to direct the mind. This has been my own subjective experience as well, posture, mudra, etc. actually have an effect on clarity..it is the same with standing exercises too.

Not saying there's no parallels or anything, but if one concludes "I am that" from the practice, that is a tradition that is different from Buddhadharma I would think.

If one is asking "who am I" with the intent of finding some substance there, that's a different kind of "who am I" than is done in Zen for example.

Also in some traditions (i'd hazard a fair number) the actual physical meditation position is said to be part of what enables someone to direct the mind. This has been my own subjective experience as well, posture, mudra, etc. actually have an effect on clarity..it is the same with standing exercises too.

I think one should not abandon physical meditation sitting and such, but one needs to have some insight about the mind.

NAMO AMITABHANAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)Linjii―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―